[ga] Perceived "noise", procedure, and legitimacy

There seems to be some confusion over what is "noise", what is
rabble-rousing, what's non-constructive, etc.
It would appear that Javier and Amadeu prefer to frame complaints
about procedure as "attacks", "noise", and "nonconstructive".
In the narrow view that these complaints address the method by which
results are achieved and not the results themselves, one could argue
that these complaints are nonconstructive with respect to the content
of the results.
However, there is another viewpoint; one that speaks directly to the
legitimacy of the results themselves. That viewpoint holds that
the method by which the results are achieved must fall within
the rules set forth by the bodies within which the work is produced.
This means that the rules of the working group must be obeyed. It
also requires that the rules of the DNSO and ICANN, which subsume those
of the WG, be obeyed as well.
If these rules are not obeyed, the framework upon which the work is
built is not legitimate. How then can the work itself be viewed
as legitimate?
This battle has been fought in the GA; It's been fought in the
Working Groups; it's now being formalized by WG-D. It may rub people
the wrong way that there are those who would prefer that a foundation
for work exist before the work commences. There are those who are
annoyed when complaints are made regarding the violation of rules that
constitute that foundation. There are those that would very much like
to wish process issues away and "get on with it".
This is exactly where the perception that people are trying to railroad
through their own agendas comes from. As long as there is the appearance
of a cavalier approach to the rules within which we must operate,
people will continue to view the work produced as fait accompli.
--
Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org